Transcript Highlights:

• During today's hearing, we will have an opportunity to hear from the California Public Utilities Commission
• process.
• We also have a broader analysis process that happens outside of the hearing.
• This is a procurement process.
• That's part of the process.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• hearing begins.
• That seems very short, but two and three minutes is very common for us to use during the hearing processes
• And of course, the Senate... ...hearing processes for all our committees.
• I look forward to the conversation and the process, and hearing the feedback from the people of Texas
• Hello, can you hear me? Mr. Cook, we can barely hear you. Can you hear me?

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting held its first regional hearing, focused on South and Central Texas, including Bexar County, Travis County, and the Rio Grande Valley. After establishing a quorum, the committee adopted its rules on a 6-3 roll-call vote, with Senators Alvarado and Miles voting no. Chair Phil King explained the regional-hearing format, the use of 2020 census data, the online testimony process, and the availability of written comments and future hearings. Several members then gave opening remarks, with Republicans emphasizing public input and Democrats arguing the special session and mid-decade redistricting were unnecessary and aimed at minority districts. A major procedural issue arose over whether the committee should invite or subpoena the DOJ attorney who authored the July 7 letter that prompted the redistricting discussion. Senator Miles moved to subpoena the attorney; the motion was seconded but then set aside after the chair said the committee could not take formal action on a non-procedural matter during a regional hearing under the adopted rules. The chair said he would consult legal counsel about issuing an invitation, and members discussed the August 7 deadline referenced in the DOJ letter. The committee then moved on to public testimony. Witnesses, including Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia, law professor Ellen Katz, and Texas NAACP president Gary Bledsoe, argued that the DOJ letter misread the law and that the targeted districts were lawful opportunity or coalition districts. They said the Fifth Circuit’s Pettway decision was limited to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and did not declare coalition districts unconstitutional, and they cited Bartlett v. Strickland as warning against intentionally dismantling effective minority districts. Garcia and Bledsoe said the hearing was politically motivated and would harm Black and Latino representation; Katz said Texas would act illegally if it followed the DOJ letter’s instructions. Members asked questions about the legal status of coalition districts, the 2021 map-drawing process, and the difference between opportunity, coalition, and crossover districts. The hearing continued with additional public witnesses, including labor representative Emily Amps, who said workers and communities of color were being harmed by the proposed redistricting effort.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that would generate a transparent, open process with a hearing and an appeal process. Okay.
• So, so the process that we're, that's kind of go with the process, because I keep hearing that we're
• that are, phone and code, that are given written notice of as a hearing of this process.
• That are, you know, given written notice of as a hearing of this process.
• , the right to appeal, the right to an open hearing, and implement transparency to the process of the

Bills: SB23, SB73, SB210, SB234, SB243, SB244, SM16

Keywords: student use, wireless devices, public schools, policy implementation, education technology funding, driver education, driver's ed, driving school, motorcycle safety, traffic safety, vulnerable road users, pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, cyclist, bike lane, micromobility, scooter, moped, motorcycle training, DWI prevention

Transcript Highlights:

• Can you hear me? Yeah. We hear you. Great. Yeah. We hear you. Great.
• Can you hear me okay? Yeah, I'm here as well, Mr. Chairman, if you can hear me. Okay.
• Can you hear me? Welcome. Can you hear me? Thank you.
• Can you hear me okay? Hello? Can you hear me okay? Can you hear me, Nancy? Hello, can you hear me?
• No, so that'll conclude today's hearing. So keep an eye open for future hearing dates.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met for its second hearing to study the future of credit card payments and sales transactions and their impacts on small businesses. Members heard extensive testimony from credit unions, retailers, restaurants, and payment-industry representatives on interchange fees, processing fees, fraud, chargebacks, rewards programs, and the ability of businesses to pass fees on to customers. Several witnesses argued that swipe fees have risen sharply, are especially burdensome for restaurants and other small businesses, and are charged on taxes and tips that are merely pass-through amounts. They urged state action to prohibit fees on tax and tip portions, improve transparency, and allow surcharging or convenience fees, while opponents warned that state regulation could reduce fraud protections, increase compliance costs, and threaten consumer rewards programs. Business owners and trade groups described thin margins, rising costs, and the difficulty of understanding merchant statements or negotiating with processors. Restaurant witnesses said card-not-present and online transactions create the greatest fraud and chargeback risk, with money often removed immediately from merchants’ accounts and disputes rarely resolved in their favor. Retail witnesses gave examples of rising effective rates, higher fees on rewards cards, and the burden of processing fees on low-value transactions. A representative from the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and others said restaurants are effectively paying fees on meals tax and gratuities, which they argued should not be subject to interchange charges. On the other side, the Cooperative Credit Union Association said interchange revenue helps credit unions fund fraud prevention, rapid card replacement, and member protections, and warned that state limits on interchange could weaken those safeguards and lead to higher consumer costs or reduced services. Airlines for America testified that airline credit card rewards are popular, support travel and jobs in Massachusetts, and could be harmed by interchange reform. The National Restaurant Association and a payments-policy attorney countered that interchange fees are set by card networks rather than competitive markets, that banks remain highly profitable even with rewards, and that states can act after recent court decisions. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questions from commissioners.

Transcript Highlights:

• the contested case hearing process, setting the initial preliminary hearing.
• Um, so in this case, our, our process is with, with the contested case hearing, so we're not objecting
• It's more on the contested case hearing process that would go to a judge, making sure that the, the folks
• The You could characterize it as that, sure, the contested case hearing process, as we heard on the air
• And again, when that leverage comes is when they are in the contested case hearing process.

Transcript Highlights:

• Treatment processes can release. Thank you. I'm sorry. Your time is up. Hello? Can you hear me?
• Last summer, after an 18-month scientific public hearing process, the Water Quality Control Commission
• Last summer, after an 18-month scientific public hearing process, the Water Quality Control Commission
• As you know, the Water Quality Control Commission already went through a lengthy hearing process on this
• Can you hear me? Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Great.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In that county, show cause hearings are set through an administrative process that they believe expedites
• process.
• De-certification hearings: the AG's office represents the commission in the hearing process.
• An administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings controls the pre-hearing and hearing
• review process.

Summary: The committee held a work session in Mill Creek focused first on the eviction process. Judge Michael Scott of King County Superior Court described historic highs in unlawful detainer filings across Washington, especially in urban counties, and said King County has reduced its backlog and average time to resolution to about 60 days by adding two dedicated eviction judges and using more judges when needed. He also described how King County and other counties are implementing the right to counsel for indigent tenants, and noted that additional housing commissioners may help. Office of Civil Legal Aid representatives Philippe Knapp and Jane Paxe said the statewide appointed counsel program has represented more than 30,000 tenants, referred clients to social services, and helped many remain housed, but they warned of a funding shortfall that could eliminate about 17 attorneys and leave roughly 2,000 tenants without representation. A landlord-side panel argued that eviction timelines remain too long and fragmented, creating unpaid rent, safety issues, and uncertainty for both landlords and tenants; they urged more uniform procedures, streamlined rental assistance, and procedural changes to reduce refiling and delays. The second work session addressed theft and vandalism of critical infrastructure, especially copper and telecom cable theft. Committee staff reviewed existing criminal and regulatory laws covering malicious mischief, theft, scrap metal businesses, and metal property deception. Comcast, Mason Public Utility District, and the Recycled Materials Association testified that theft of aerial cable and copper has become a crisis affecting power, internet, 911 service, schools, hospitals, and line-worker safety. Utility representatives described outages, hazards, and rising costs, and asked for stronger audits of scrapyards, tougher penalties for theft affecting critical infrastructure, and tighter rules on payment and identification. Recyclers said they oppose the thefts and already operate under heavy regulation, but acknowledged enforcement gaps and the need for better coordination; committee members discussed possible bill concepts and asked for written recommendations. The final work session covered standards for law enforcement personnel. Criminal Justice Training Commission Executive Director Monica Alexander and Assistant Director Kimberly Bliss explained current certification and decertification rules, including background checks, training requirements, mandatory and discretionary grounds for decertification, and the hearing process. They said elected sheriffs are not currently required to undergo the same pre-election background check as other applicants, though they can still be decertified if already certified, and they reported a backlog of more than 1,000 cases with about 70 to 80 new cases coming in each month. Retired Judge Ann Levinson then outlined ways the legislature could strengthen and align standards for chiefs, sheriffs, and marshals, including requiring certification within a set time, setting a minimum age, requiring recent state background checks, and making loss of certification a vacancy in office. Committee members asked questions about accountability for elected sheriffs, background-check administration, and decertification outcomes.

Transcript Highlights:

• permitting process.
• You'll see that we still have funding and grant application processes that you will hear more about,
• Processes that you will hear more about, that we plan on continuing looking for federal dollars to help
• Can you hear her? Yes, can you hear me now? There I can, thank you. Okay.
• I can't hear you. We can hear you. We can hear me? Okay, yeah. Thank you very much.

Summary: The committee met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee for an update on the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) program. Members first adopted the proposed committee rules, then received program updates from staff on environmental review, permitting, design, tribal consultation, and public engagement. Staff said the project remains in the supplemental EIS process, with a final supplemental EIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026, which would allow construction to begin. They also described ongoing work on Coast Guard navigation clearance, Section 106 historic-property coordination, and architectural guidelines for the bridge and five-mile corridor, emphasizing that the visualizations shown were conceptual and that public and partner feedback has already influenced design considerations such as accessibility and shared-use path connections. Members raised concerns about schedule delays, rising costs, and whether the project is being designed to be functional, safe, and economical. Staff acknowledged that the timeline has slipped from earlier expectations and said the delay reflects the complexity of the environmental and federal review process, as well as the need to avoid redoing steps. They said the updated cost estimate is being prepared now that design has advanced to roughly 30 percent, and that it will account for inflation, risk factors, and both fixed-span and movable-span options. Staff estimated a movable span would add more than $400 million and said the first construction work after environmental approval would likely be preliminary freeway and retaining-wall work in late 2026, followed by the bridge procurement. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff reported that major federal grants have been executed, including Mega and Bridge Investment Grant agreements, and that state STIP amendments are advancing to allow access to federal funds. The tolling team described Level 3 traffic-and-revenue work, a bi-state tolling subcommittee process, and possible toll scenarios aimed at supporting either about $1.24 billion or $1.6 billion in toll revenue. Members questioned low-income toll relief timing, truck toll rates, and the effect of tolls on freight users. Staff said low-income discounts are being analyzed for both revenue and operational feasibility, that tribal exemptions and other policy exemptions are under review, and that the commissions expect to move into public outreach on toll rates and policies in 2026, with tolling on the existing bridges currently projected to begin in spring 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you can hear me, Chairman? Yeah, we can hear you.
• If you can hear me. We can hear you?
• And I just get a little bit frustrated and a little bit angry, to be honest, to hear banks and processing
• So, Hunter Hamburlin, can you hear us? I can hear you. Can you guys hear me? Great. Loud and clear.
• So Hunter Hamblin, can you hear us? I can hear you? Can you guys hear me? Great. Loud and clear.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Legislative Commission on the Future of Payments and Sales Transactions by Credit Card and the Impacts for Small Businesses held a public hearing focused on interchange fees, sales tax and tip processing, chargebacks, fraud, surcharging, and the broader future of payment systems. Chair Paul Feeney and co-chair Rep. Jamie Murphy opened by explaining the commission’s charge and inviting testimony from small businesses, industry groups, banks, and policy experts. Representative Sean Garballey testified first, arguing that Massachusetts tourism depends on universal card acceptance and stable interchange, and urging the commission not to disrupt the current system ahead of major events expected to bring millions of visitors to the Commonwealth. A large portion of the hearing featured independent restaurant owners and advocates describing thin margins and the burden of paying percentage-based processing fees on sales tax and tips that are not business revenue. Jen Ziskin, Kristen Canty, Nancy Cushman, Kerry Colzer, and others said restaurants often operate on very small profits and that processing fees on taxes and gratuities can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Ryan Lotz also urged reforms to chargebacks, including refunding chargeback fees when merchants prevail, requiring consumers to contact businesses before disputing charges, and limiting repeat abuse. Commission members pressed witnesses on whether tax and tip amounts could be separated at the point of sale, and several witnesses said current consumer card systems do not transmit that level of detail. Testimony from credit union, banking, and payments representatives largely opposed state-level changes that would carve out taxes or tips from interchange, warning of compliance burdens, higher costs, reduced rewards, and possible effects on fraud protection and access to credit. Alex Verine of America’s Credit Unions and Deb Peters and Keely McEwen of the Electronic Payments Coalition said the payment system is complex, that interchange funds fraud prevention and network infrastructure, and that new state mandates could create operational and legal uncertainty. Dan Swanson argued states have authority to act and pointed to Illinois litigation and federal court rulings, while Julian Morris and Brad Popolado emphasized the benefits of card acceptance, the decline of cash, and the need to consider other payment methods and check fraud as well. Several witnesses discussed international payment systems, instant payments, and QR standards as possible future directions. The chairs and members engaged in extended back-and-forth with witnesses about whether Massachusetts could exempt sales tax from swipe fees, whether surcharging should be revisited, and whether vendor compensation or other targeted relief might be more workable than broad changes to interchange. No votes were taken. At the close of the hearing, the chairs said the commission would hold one additional public hearing date to be determined, after which members would begin developing next steps and a report.

Transcript Highlights:

• The purpose of today's hearing is to lay out a bill and to hear public testimony on that bill.
• additional hearings.
• Hearing on July 25th, 2025. We had the North Texas hearing on July 26th, 2025.
• the House hearings.
• Hearing today.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, what I didn't hear in your comment was due process, and there's a due process piece missing.
• So, what I didn't hear in your comment was due process, and there's a due process piece missing.
• So, what I didn't hear in your comment was due process, and there's a due process piece missing.
• So, what I didn't hear in your comment was due process, and there's a due process piece missing.
• hearings in. That means we're going to hearings in.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from hearing aids.
• I'm hard of hearing, and I think it's time to let California kids hear.
• Please let California kids hear. Please let California kids hear.
• We hear from siblings.
• We hear from siblings.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• from hearing aids.
• I'm hard of hearing, and I think it's time to let California kids hear.
• Please let California kids hear. Please let California kids hear.
• I can hear it.
• We hear from siblings.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several measures, beginning with SB 331 by Sen. Menjivar, which would require large-group health plans to cover hearing aids for children. The author and supporters described the bill as a long-running effort to address a developmental emergency and reduce out-of-pocket costs for families, while opponents were absent. Testimony from parents, advocates, medical experts, and organizations emphasized the importance of early access to hearing aids; committee members voiced strong support, and the bill was moved on a do-pass basis to Appropriations, with several members requesting to be added as coauthors. The committee then heard SB 608, also by Sen. Menjivar, to expand access to condoms in school-based health centers and related settings and to prevent barriers such as ID checks. Supporters, including students and school health advocates, argued the bill would improve sexual health and reduce stigma, while opponents from family and faith groups argued it would undermine parental authority and normalize early sexual activity. The bill was supported by committee members and moved forward on a do-pass basis to Appropriations. Next, SB 971 by Sen. Choi proposed community-based healthy aging partnerships for older adults, with testimony from the California Senior Legislature and supporters from aging and dementia organizations. The measure was described as voluntary and focused on connection, independence, and local collaboration; there was no opposition, and the committee moved it on a do-pass basis to Appropriations. The committee also heard SB 869 by Sen. Weber Pierson, which would require warning icons and statements on chain restaurant menus for beverages with very high added sugar content. Supporters framed it as a transparency and public health measure, while restaurant and beverage industry representatives opposed it unless amended, citing cost and menu-space concerns; the bill was nevertheless moved on a do-pass basis to Appropriations after a roll call vote, with some members voting no and the measure placed on call. The committee also considered SB 950 by Sen. Weber Pierson, aimed at ensuring timely coverage of FDA-approved, medically necessary treatments for early-onset Alzheimer’s disease on commercial plans. Supporters, including the Alzheimer’s Association and a patient advocate, said the bill would reduce delays and barriers to care, while health plan representatives opposed it over step therapy and utilization-management concerns. Members discussed the limited treatment window and the need for early access, and the bill was moved on a do-pass basis to Appropriations. In addition, SB 490 by Sen. Umberg would set timelines for DHCS investigations of unlicensed sober living homes and allow counties to assist if the department cannot act in time; supporters from Anaheim and a patient-brokering survivor described serious abuse and oversight gaps, while county behavioral health representatives opposed the county role as an unfunded and potentially liability-creating burden. After discussion, the bill was also moved on a do-pass basis to Appropriations. Finally, the committee began hearing SB 1037 by Sen. Weber Pierson on health insurance affordability and rate review, with supporters arguing it would tie premium increases more closely to affordability targets and public reporting; the transcript cuts off before the committee completed action on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then down on line 12, due process And then down on line 12, due process rights<00:47:08.319>
• But then I asked, "What about due process? Is there any problems with due process?" "Oh, no.
• the process.
• <01:16:37.199> I hearing officer has to do it. I hearing officer has to do it.
• hearing officer or panel shall require. hearing officer or panel shall require.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on HB 510 and HB 112, but the discussion focused almost entirely on HB 510, which would establish due process rights for students, student organizations, and faculty members in disciplinary proceedings at state institutions of higher education. The chair reviewed proposed amendments already approved or being considered, including revised definitions, confidentiality language for grievance information, removal of the adverse-inference language tied to self-incrimination, changes to cross-examination procedures, and narrowing an emergency exception by removing property damage and focusing on immediate threats to physical health or safety. The committee also discussed whether the hearing officer should have discretion to require a third party to conduct cross-examination, with the sponsor saying the word should remain “may” so the officer can respond to the circumstances of each case. Members opposed to the bill argued that existing campus procedures already provide adequate due process and that the proposal is unnecessary, potentially intimidating to complainants, and disruptive to university policies and collective bargaining agreements. They objected especially to language allowing the accused to be present during cross-examination of an accuser and to the use of the term “victim” before facts are established. Supporters said the bill is intended to ensure basic fairness for accused students and faculty, that the language was revised to address concerns, and that the rights listed are appropriate because serious allegations can have lasting consequences even outside the criminal context. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided; the committee remained in discussion/caucus over the bill language.

Transcript Highlights:

• , the process This process will initiate a coordinated review among participating agencies, which will
• Does anyone need to hear from the source witness? Hearing none, public testimony is closed.
• Once I started my adoption process, I was well-informed of how... the process will go before and after
• We don't just watch this process.
• And so the process... I did not give him a hearing on Senate Bill 881.

Bills: HB163, HB216, HB721, HB2035, HB2038, HB3057, HB3153, HB3233, HB3595, HB3801, HB3812, HB4076, HB4129, HB4377, HB4535, HB4666, HB4730, HB4743, HB4903, HB5149, HB5155, HB1534, HB163, HB216

Keywords: epinephrine, healthcare, emergency response, administration, medical policy, health care, itemized billing, patient rights, provider regulations, Texas Health and Safety Code, cost disclosure, insurance, benefit plan, administrators, chemical dependency, treatment facilities, minor admissions, parental notice, mental health, medical licensing

Transcript Highlights:

• Does anyone need to hear from the resource witness? Hearing none, public testimony is closed.
• We don't just rush this process.
• Hearing none, public testimony is closed? Hearing none, public testimony is closed.
• Hearing none, it is so ordered.
• Hearing none, it is so ordered.

Bills: HB163, HB216, HB721, HB2035, HB2038, HB3057, HB3153, HB3233, HB3595, HB3801, HB3812, HB4076, HB4129, HB4377, HB4535, HB4666, HB4730, HB4743, HB4903, HB5149, HB5155, HB1534

Keywords: epinephrine, healthcare, emergency response, administration, medical policy, health care, itemized billing, patient rights, provider regulations, Texas Health and Safety Code, cost disclosure, insurance, benefit plan, administrators, chemical dependency, treatment facilities, minor admissions, parental notice, mental health, medical licensing

Summary: The committee met without a quorum at first, then established a quorum with five members present. Members heard and left pending several House bills, including HB 4743 on allowing hospitals to license mobile stroke units under a hospital license, HB 4129 on earlier DFPS enforcement tools for single-source continuum contractors in community-based foster care, HB 4903 creating a Quad Agency Child Care Initiative to coordinate child care regulations across state agencies, HB 3812 revising the gold card/prior authorization process for physicians, HB 4535 requiring written informed consent before COVID-19 vaccination and a standardized state information sheet, and HB 4666 reducing the frequency of some HHSC reports to the legislature. The chair also noted HB 35 would be voted on later after a subcommittee back was received, and that a large number of bills would be heard the next day. Most of the testimony focused on HB 4535 and HB 4730. On HB 4535, supporters argued the bill would strengthen informed consent for COVID vaccination by requiring written consent and clearer state-level information about risks, manufacturer liability protections, and adverse-event reporting; opponents, including a pediatrician and medical groups, said existing federal and state informed-consent materials already cover these topics and warned the bill could create duplicative paperwork and penalties. On HB 3812, the Texas Medical Association supported changes that would extend the gold-card evaluation period to one year, raise transparency, and make prior authorization exemptions easier to administer, while health plans said they were neutral and viewed the bill as a balance between reducing burden and preventing fraud or unsafe care. HB 4730 drew extensive testimony from adoption professionals, birth mothers, adoptive parents, and child welfare advocates. The bill would require DFPS to create a relinquishment form, train child-placing agency staff, and extend the minimum waiting period for voluntary relinquishment from 48 hours to seven days. Supporters of the current law argued the 48-hour period aligns with hospital discharge, allows informed decisions, and helps birth parents and adoptive families begin healing and bonding without pushing children into foster care or creating legal and Medicaid complications. The author said the bill would be revised and that the seven-day provision was a work in progress. No votes were taken on the bills during the meeting; each bill was left pending after public testimony closed.

Transcript Highlights:

• But when you onboard new attorneys, there's an onboarding process, there's a training process, there's
• A multi-multi-stage process.
• Everyone in this hearing room who took the time to attend today's hearing, whichever side of the aisle
• Great to hear. Question two. Thank you. Great to hear. Question two. Thank you, Madam Chair.
• We get to hear that debate, right? I want to hear what you have to say.

Keywords: 970, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The purpose of today's hearing is, of course, to hear from the public before we go into that process.
• Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Can you hear me? I can hear you.
• Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Perfect, we can hear you.
• Can you hear me? I can hear you. You can hear me. Perfect.
• Your constituents want a fair districting process, ample hearings, and ample time to see and hear justification

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• . we will refer for a contested process. we will refer for a contested case<00:25:08.240> hearing<
• through this revalidation process? through this revalidation process?
• process? process?
• Can you hear me? Yes, we can absolutely hear you. Thank you. Perfect.
• Can you hear me?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It's currently in process.
• It's currently in process.
• This is a budget hearing. It's a budget and oversight hearing.
• This process started January 4th, decision-making process across the department.
• It's a mandatory process.

Summary: The hearing focused first on sexual abuse, harassment, and retaliation in California’s women’s prisons, with testimony from CDCR wardens, the Office of Inspector General, advocacy groups, and formerly incarcerated survivors. Legislators and witnesses described a pattern of staff misconduct, fear of retaliation, gaps in reporting, and the need for stronger accountability, better investigations, and more outside access for survivor support organizations. CDCR said it has expanded training, body-worn and stationary cameras, outside partnerships, and PREA-related response procedures, while the Inspector General requested additional funding and staff to monitor more grievances and staff sexual misconduct cases under SB 1069. Members pressed CDCR on why accused staff are not always placed on leave, how cases are referred to prosecutors, and whether current protections are enough; several members argued the state should aim to investigate all complaints and do more to prevent retaliation and repeat abuse. The second issue was rehabilitative and reentry programming in women’s prisons. CDCR’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs and the wardens highlighted education, vocational training, substance use treatment, peer support, and community reentry programs, citing increased enrollment and recent graduates earning diplomas, degrees, and certifications. They said these programs are intended to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Formerly incarcerated advocates and community providers argued that current offerings are still too limited, outdated, and not aligned with today’s job market, especially around digital literacy and transferable credentials, and they urged more funding for community-based, trauma-informed, gender-responsive programming. A coalition representative asked for a $20 million continuation and expansion of the Wright Grant program, and members discussed additional budget requests for reentry and related women’s services.